ArticleNPJ vaccines2025
A field test of empathetic refutational and motivational interviewing to address vaccine hesitancy among patients.
Article in NPJ vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of debunking interventions on endorsement of alternative medicine: a randomized controlled experiment in Peru.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Measuring outcomes of training in Empathetic Refutational Interviewing (ERI) for vaccine communication: Development and validation of the ERI Skills Inventory (ERISI).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Household and Community Clustering of Concurrent Vaccine Hesitancy in China: Multicenter Survey.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Article
- Piloting short empathetic refutational interview modules in clinical training: Two UK studies.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Enhanced Recovery Pathway and Postoperative Ileus After Elective Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Anchored and Propagated Updating Within Pseudoscientific Belief Systems.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vaccine hesitancy is among the most concerning public health issues due to declining immunization rates worldwide. We report a mixed-methods field test of two conversational techniques that allow for an empathetic dialogue on vaccination between health care professionals and patients: Empathetic-refutational interviewing (ERI) and motivational interviewing (MI). Thirty Romanian general practitioners were assigned to an untrained control group and to two experimental groups in which they were trained in ERI or MI. After training, physicians had conversations on HPV and influenza vaccines with 334 patients who were hesitant to receive a vaccination. Patients of physicians in the ERI group demonstrated larger increases in positive attitudes toward vaccines and willingness to get vaccinated, while a greater proportion of patients in the MI group scheduled vaccination appointments. Interviews with participating physicians revealed overall satisfaction with the conversational techniques. Empathetic interpersonal communication can have a substantial positive impact on vaccination rates, especially for vaccines subject to mass misinformation campaigns.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.